Constitutional Lawyer Reveals Trump's Killshot to Defeat Voter Fraud

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here's the problem the SCOTUS doesn't like to make would changing rulings. They'd rather see the status quo continue... and that means Joe Biden wins the presidency.

Republicans should have cheated better themselves if they wanted to defeated the Democrats. Their heart just wasn't in it; they don't want Trump leading their party ... he was bad for business.

www.businessinsider.com...-v-madison-1803-1

The US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.
It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year, but its choices have had a huge impact on the country.
Some decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed a person's right to expression. Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.
Here is a guide to 45 of the Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.

In all those decisions the court only affirmed where the country was already heading; what they county as a whole wanted.

There have been very few decisions out of left field that turned the country on its head.

The SCOTUS will never reverse an election unless the country as a whole wants it to happen... not just 50%. No mater how many irregularities there may be.

a reply to: jrod

If this suit was truly concerned about changing the voting procedures via executive order then it would name every state that did this, NOT just the states Trump lost.

They had opportunity to file suit about the changes before the election. Only when things went counter to what they wanted did they.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The supreme court is not going to invalidate millions of votes, If they did that would vioate everything this country stands for. This would totally destroy democracy in this country and we would just be moving to dictatorship.

Why is the argument always about invalidating millions of votes? Its about removing millions of illegal votes so the only valid votes are the legal ones. Why is that such a stumbling block?

Why is finding massive voter fraud and preventing it from affecting an election a violation of everything this country stands for? How does preventing millions of illegal votes from being included in an election destroy democracy?

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean...

originally posted by: jrod
Furthermore this a bias lawsuit targeting only states Biden won. Several states changed their election procedures before the election in response to the pandemic via executive order because of time constraints.

If this suit was truly concerned about changing the voting procedures via executive order then it would name every state that did this, NOT just the states Trump lost.

No telling what the SCOTUS will do. However I do not think it was biased

If they could find voting irregularities in other states, they would do just that.

votepatternanalysis.substack.com...
spectator.us...
theconservativetreehouse.com...

It would appear the irregularities heavily favored one candidate in a few states.

If the justices come to believe the election really was stolen, hard to believe they will just throw their hands up.

a reply to: Phage

So true.

As I posted before, I hope the Supreme Court condemns this suit, that it adds a statement of condemnation besides motion denied...to send the message because many do not seem to get how this suit is wrong on so many levels or maybe simply 'motion denied' is enough.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

This suit is not about voting irregularities, it is challenging the legality of states that changed their voting procedures via executive order(but only states where Trump lost).

I think this is a case where you see what you want to see. Your sources are extremely bias and have a poor record of factual reporting.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jrod

If this suit was truly concerned about changing the voting procedures via executive order then it would name every state that did this, NOT just the states Trump lost.

They had opportunity to file suit about the changes before the election. Only when things went counter to what they wanted did they.

Simply because BEFORE the election they had no legal standing so could not, by definition, file a suit.

Can't prove harm on something that didn't happen yet.

But you knew that...

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here's the problem the SCOTUS doesn't like to make would changing rulings. They'd rather see the status quo continue... and that means Joe Biden wins the presidency.

Republicans should have cheated better themselves if they wanted to defeated the Democrats. Their heart just wasn't in it; they don't want Trump leading their party ... he was bad for business.

www.businessinsider.com...-v-madison-1803-1

The US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.
It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year, but its choices have had a huge impact on the country.
Some decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed a person's right to expression. Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.
Here is a guide to 45 of the Supreme Court's most impactful decisions.

In all those decisions the court only affirmed where the country was already heading; what they county as a whole wanted.

There have been very few decisions out of left field that turned the country on its head.

The SCOTUS will never reverse an election unless the country as a whole wants it to happen... not just 50%. No mater how many irregularities there may be.

I'm not saying they will reverse the election, if they hear the arguments they may just affirm it's up to the state legislature. Even the experts are speculating what they will rule even if they hear the arguments for and against.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

BTW what's your price per hour? because if you are a lawyer I'd pretty much guarantee if somebody paid you 20,000 a day you would be arguing for fraud Like Lin Wood, Rudy G and Sidney Powell are too

I think you're proving my point--they are doing this for the money.

And this should give you an idea of my rates: taxprof.typepad.com...#:~:text=Members%20and%20counsel%20are%20now,a ren't%20even%20the%20highest.

So you are a Bankruptcy lawyer.

No wonder you side with Biden and Co.

You are going to make a killing the next few years if he gets in.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Why did the SCOTUS vote 6-3 to hear the case then? Why waste everyone's time if they will not take it seriously?

I don't think that you know what you are talking about. This hasn't happened.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

BTW what's your price per hour? because if you are a lawyer I'd pretty much guarantee if somebody paid you 20,000 a day you would be arguing for fraud Like Lin Wood, Rudy G and Sidney Powell are too

I think you're proving my point--they are doing this for the money.

And this should give you an idea of my rates: taxprof.typepad.com...#:~:text=Members%20and%20counsel%20are%20now,a ren't%20even%20the%20highest.

So you are a Bankruptcy lawyer.

No wonder you side with Biden and Co.

You are going to make a killing the next few years if he gets in.

Don't practice bankruptcy but same calibre of firm. Billing rates are pretty similar across top firms.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Why did the SCOTUS vote 6-3 to hear the case then? Why waste everyone's time if they will not take it seriously?

It looks like johnylaw16 doesn't know much of anything. Just throws up accusations about stuff that don't have anything to do with what you asked. Rudy asked for 20 k per day? Yeah. Since Johnylaw16 claims Rudy is payed too much...... We should just hand over the Presidency to Biden. What an illogical argument?

Not what I said. I was asked why Gulliani would be bringing these suits if they were meritless; 20k/day speaks to that.

Also, looks like you don't know what you're talking about, quoting a post with incorrect information.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Why did the SCOTUS vote 6-3 to hear the case then? Why waste everyone's time if they will not take it seriously?

I don't think that you know what you are talking about. This hasn't happened.

The SCOTUS put it on their docket.

Which means it is going to be heard.

What kind of lawyer were you again?

Ever heard of the Rule of Four?

a reply to: Lumenari

How many cases has Ted Cruise lost arguing before the SC?
I can't remember.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gothmog

The writing is on the wall in quite a few languages.

Biden won by a landslide and Trump lost.

Even your SCOTUS including Trump's supposed YES Men(and Woman) agrees.

No preferably about it just a fact.

What writing ?
What wall ?
My SCOTUS ?
Landslide ?
You using the Guardian or CNN for information ?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Why did the SCOTUS vote 6-3 to hear the case then? Why waste everyone's time if they will not take it seriously?

I don't think that you know what you are talking about. This hasn't happened.

The SCOTUS put it on their docket.

Which means it is going to be heard.

What kind of lawyer were you again?

Ever heard of the Rule of Four?

You don't know what you are talking about.

This is not an appellate case. This is a case where the court has original jurisdiction, under Art. III of the constitution because it is a case between states. Thus, instead of filing a petition for certiorari, Texas has filed a Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint. That is what is appearing on the docket. In fact, Supreme Court Rule 17 mandates that such motions be placed on the docket; no vote is needed, and no significance can be gleaned from the fact that the motion appears on the docket. Before the Court hears the case, it must grant this motion. No votes have occurred, and the Court has agreed to hear nothing.

Here is the docket: www.scotusblog.com...
Here are the Supreme Court Rules: www.law.cornell.edu...

Learn what you are talking about before you spout off.

I'm just going by what my wife said.

I asked her because for many years she was a Judge.

She says that (as an unwritten rule) the votes of four Justices are needed to grant certiorari and bring a case before the Court for decision on the merits.

It is then given a docket number.

So since it has a docket number, it is going to be brought before the court for a decision on merit.

Although this should be an easy one for them, since they already have precedent with Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision).

I also asked her for fun to see what she thought about an anon on ATS and his claim of being a lawyer.

T&C's prevent me from sharing her opinion.

a reply to: Gothmog

What wall indeed. x

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: dragonridr
The supreme court is not going to invalidate millions of votes, If they did that would vioate everything this country stands for. This would totally destroy democracy in this country and we would just be moving to dictatorship.

Why is the argument always about invalidating millions of votes? Its about removing millions of illegal votes so the only valid votes are the legal ones. Why is that such a stumbling block?

Why is finding massive voter fraud and preventing it from affecting an election a violation of everything this country stands for? How does preventing millions of illegal votes from being included in an election destroy democracy?

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean...

Brilliant princess bride quote lol

Dude. Flamed that Johnny character roasting hot lol.
Your Missus rocks! What a peach
a reply to: Lumenari